Mumbai Court February 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Bharati R. Verma Vs. the Commissioner of Police Thane and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR469
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner prays for deletion of Respondent No. 4. Prayer granted.2. Rule.3. The learned A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 3 waives notice. By consent heard forthwith.4. The short question involved in this petition under Article 227 is whether the Petitioner is entitled to get licence under 'The Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement, including Melas and Tamashas, 1960' (hereinafter referred to 'Rules of 1960') for running Mini Children Park.5. A few facts are as follows:-The Petitioner applied to Ulhasnagar Municipal Council for getting a permission to run Mini Children Park. Agreement took place between the Petitioner and Ulhasnagar Municipal Council on 24.5.1996. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council granted licence to the Petitioner to run the same on 25.6.1996. It provided for certain terms and conditions. One of the terms was (1) The applicant shall use the site to...
Papular Art Printers Vs. Shri Rushikul Brahmacharya Ashram Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR702
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the Judgment dated 3rd July, 1996 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay in Appeal No. 770 of 1985, dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the Judgment and decree dated 8.11.1985 passed by learned Trial Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay in RAE Suit No. 463 of 1971. The suit related to shop No. 62 in Chudiwala building, Khadilkar Road, Kandewadi, Bombay-4. The suit was filed by the Seth Tolaram L. Chudiwala, who described himself as Managing Trustee of Shri Rushikul Brahmacharya Ashram Trust. It was claimed that the suit premises are owned by the Trust, which is a registered public trust and of which Shri Chudiwala is a managing trustee. It is an admitted position that apart from the said Chudiwala there are other trustees of the said public trust. Before the Trial Court the maintainability of the suit was challenged on the ...
Laxmi Feeds and Export Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)62ITD315(Mum.)
1. These are cross-appeals by the assessee and the department against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 20-7-1989 for the assessment year 1986-87.2. The first objection in the appeal of the assessee is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in not granting deduction for the amount of Rs. 16,500 being the provision made for payment of professional charges. The details are as follows :-Rs. 4,000 Professional fees for tax work for the year ended 30-6-1985Rs. 7,500 Audit fee for the year ended 30-6-1985Rs. 5,000 Tax Audit fee for the earlier accounting year, i.e., 1983-84.3. The CIT (Appeals) mentioned that even under the mercantile system of accounting, deduction for a liability can be allowed only when the liability arises. We find in respect of the above items, the services were rendered by the concerned professional and so we have to hold that the liability for making the payment has arisen even if the relevant bills were not received by the end of the accounting year. In this view of the ma...
Voltas Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)64ITD232(Mum.)
1. The assessee and the revenue are in cross appeal for the same assessment year and for that reason, these appeals are grouped together and disposed of by this common order.2. We shall first deal with the grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the manufacturing activity of air-conditioning equipments, air-conditioners, etc., as well as selling them. It has raised as many as fifteen grounds, of which ground No. 4(a) and (b) concerning disallowance made with reference to section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on sales tax, etc., and ground No. 15 concerning disallowance of bad debts/business loss of Rs. 36.30 lakhs were not pressed during the course of the hearing and, accordingly, these two grounds are treated as rejected.4. The second issue relates to Rs. 3,00,000 received from M/s. Pioma Industries (hereinafter referred to as 'Pioma') on surrender of a trade mark 'Rasna'. The claim of the ass...
Dhondu Hanmant Reshim Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another and Ravindr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR550; 1997(3)BomCR153; (1997)2BOMLR344; 1997CriLJ3982; 1997(3)MhLj344
1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by Dhondu Hanmant Reshim praying therein that the contemnors may be held guilty of civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilfully, knowingly and intentionally flouting and disobeying the order/direction passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division dated 9-8-1995. According to the petitioner, the Additional Commissioner directed the respondents for providing alternative commercial premises within the limits of Greater Bombay within one month from the date of the order dated 9-8-1995. 2. The petitioner states that he and other 39 occupiers received notices from the office of Collector, Andheri on 18-4-95 purporting to be under Section 50(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 calling upon them to remove the zopadpatti and vacate the Government land within seven days from the receipt of the notices failing which the zopadpatti placed by the petitioner and others would be removed. The aforesaid notices received b...
State of Maharashtra and Etc. Vs. Manohar Yeshwant Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)630; 1997CriLJ3114
Sahai, J.1. Since both these matters arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned judgment, we propose disposing them of by one judgment. 2. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16-1-1984, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No. 69 of 1983, acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. S. 34 I.P.C. and alternatively for the offence under S. 302 I.P.C. has came up in appeal before us under S. 378(1) of Cr.P.C. The same appeal is numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 1984. It may be mentioned that appeal against respondent No. 4 stands abated vide orders of this Court dated 31-3-1987. By the said judgment, the trial Judge issued notice of perjury to the three eye witnesses namely Maruti Shripati Patil, P.W. 1, Prakash Shivram Patil, P.W. 2 and Santu Hari Kambale, P.W. 3. His finding in paragraph 23 of his judgment is that the said witnesses have perjured joined hands in order to seek their poli...
Sheela Sambhaji Kamble Vs. Sambhaji Dattu Kamble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: I(1998)DMC157
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This Family Court Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1993 passed by the Family Court at Pune in Petition A. No. 258 of 1991. By the aforesaid judgment and decree the Family Court allowed the petition and decreed that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent stands resolved from 30.9.1993.2. The appellant in this case is wife of respondent. The respondent husband-filed a petition for divorce on the ground of desertion and also on the ground of cruelty. It is the case of respondent that he got married with the present appellant on 11.5.1988 at Solapur as per the Buddhists religious ceremony. Thereafter both the husband and wife were residing at 221, Laxmi Nagar, Yerawada at Pune. At the said premises the respondent-husband was staying with the appellant-wife and only his brother Prabhakar used to come to their residence for taking food. The said brother Prabhakar used to reside at the place of the respondent's sister's...
Sahebrao Nathu Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR728
1. The appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 8th August, 1984 passed by the Addl. Session Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 77 of 1984 convicting and sentencing him to undergo seven years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 6,000/- and in default to further undergo 3 months R.I. for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case runs as under:The prosecutrix Draupadi Sadhu Kamble P.W. 3 was staying with her mother Kondabai Sadhu Kambale P.W. 2 and brother Bharat Kambale P.W. 4 and some others in village Winzar, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune, At a distance of 20 to 30 ft. from her house was that of the appellant.3. On 26.12.1983 she, her mother and 2 brothers were present in the house. At about 8.00 p.m. they took meals. Thereafter, she (the prosecutrix) changed clothes which had became wet while she was washing utensils. She then went to answer call of nature wearing petticoat and zampar. At about 9.00 p.m. While s...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. National Rayon Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT408Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The brief facts are that the Respondents manufacture Nylon yarn and Non-cellulosic waste falling under Tariff Item No. 18(i)(a) and 18-IV of Central Excise Tariff from polymide chips. As per Notification No.38/73 Polymide chips are exempted if used in the manufacture of Nylon yarn. The Respondents claimed exemption, but the department took the view that some quantity of polymide chips went into the waste yarn, and as such the exemption is not available for polymide chips going into Nylon waste. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Kalyan-I Division confirmed the demand for Rs. 1,00,01,278.43.The Assistant Commissioner in the order however, took the view that there has been suppression of facts by the Respondents, and the invoked longer period for demanding duty under Section 11 A. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the department cannot do so.He also held on merits that the exemption notification cannot be read in the narrow limited sc...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Chandiram Lilaram
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT465Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The brief facts are that on 16-11-1987 a consignment of 55 cartons of snap fasteners were seized in Bombay from a transport godown. The respondent herein came forward to claim the goods and further produced a Bill of Entry dated 6-11-1987 under which the goods were imported and cleared through Calcutta Custom House. The department made enquiries with the Calcutta Custom House whose officers also conducted searches of the premises of the respondent. The Calcutta Custom House informed that there was gross under-valuation of the consignment and that incriminating documents, blank invoices of suppliers letter heads have been recovered in the searen. The matter came to be adjudicated by the Addl. Commr. of Customs of Mumbai which is the present impugned order.The Addl. Commr. found that there was no case for confiscating the goods under seizure and ordered its release. The Central Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of its powers of review under Section 129D(1) has applied for revie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »